Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Debate, feminist style

Never bother with dialectic when dealing with a feminist. Their use of dialectic is only for superficial rhetorical purposes, and the veil is tissue-thin. Just go directly to rhetoric, flay them, roll them in salt, and then, if you happen to feel like it, address the nominally dialectical point for the sake of any third parties observing.

28 comments:

Vox, what might your rhetorical response have been? I'm thinking of something like, "Of course feminism is about men. They talk about nothing else, just 'Men Are Bad' all day long." Or: "If feminism were any more about men, it would need a basket to carry its balls around in."

I would have started with "Why do you hate men?" You always want to get feminists defending themselves personally. Your responses are suboptimal because you are not addressing the feminist herself, you are addressing something else that is not-her.

This is like the latest Dalrock piece where in the process of debating why women aren't hypergamous, the female commentator went on to demonstrate text book examples of female hypergamy. Its understandable though, because Feminists have no insight, not in to things generally, and especially not themselves. But its a class A fuck up when you set out to disprove A and in the process instead prove it. Intergalactic level stupid.

Although I'd add it'll take a bit to get there...you address them personally at first and their modus operandi defense I notice is they fire back insults. Slip past the insults and see if you can pin them down to something.

Mine is just one family, but a good observation in light of the Dalrock reference.

I have two sisters. Between the two of them, there are three kids, three dads, four felony convictions and prison terms. It is worth noting that my dad was against all three relationships, and my mother supported the relationships... with my mom and sisters calling my dad a controlling ass for being less than supportive of his daughter's choices in unemployed thugs.

My one sister in particular was valediction of her senior class at a Christian high schools and immediately enrolled in bible school. Yet, within a year of leaving the nest she was pregnant by a criminal, ans ultimately landed in a shelter. Within a year of leavingbthr shelter, she was impregnated by another criminal.

The problem was always blamed in men. Dad was an ass for not supporting her. The father's were not stepping up. Better men didn't want the leftovers. Bad bad men were bad bad bad.

Feminism is about detracting consequences from choices, responsibilities from outcome, and outcome from effort. For women anyway. And to point out the obvious that they can't argue with, they will lash out.

Which isn't all that difficult considering that they see everything through and entirely personal lens no matter what you do. A takeaway from a recent discussion with a feminist:

"No matter how hypothetical a discussion might be, to a woman it’s ultimately about her. Moreover, she’s likely to project that mindset onto others, assuming that her conversation partner isn’t arguing about a hypothetical either and instead making a point that matters especially to him."

"I don't know... dialectic seems to be brutally exposing them for any observer involved."

No, the instinctive human reaction to a situation where one party is arguing in bad faith and the other is continuing in good faith (i.e. failing tit-for-tat) is that the latter is submitting to the dominance of the former. The "go fuck yourself" in the original post shows the typical feminist making sure everyone knows she isn't the submissive one.

"Most dialectically capable people try to use dialectic even when they don't have an audience. Contra the advice of Aristotle."

Exactly. You have to bring bad faith yourself - preferably in a playful, even-tempered manner - to show that you understand the game (amusement hinting at mastery) before any dialectic will occur. Premature good faith, like premature romance for a man/sex for a woman means you lose the game.

She looks and sounds a lot like my last. Never did have to go fuck myself. The trick with feminists is to give them all the rope they want, let them tie themselves up, then flip, find the wet spots, and give them what they have been demanding. Just saying.

I, personally, loved oppressing here with my... let's just call it my patriarchy. Then again, she did too. Sometimes I would "debate" to get her ready, sometimes it wasn't necessary. Most conversations were with me on autopilot. I knew what I wanted, what she needed, and how to thread that needle. They aren't debating, they are just looking for a little. Or better, a lot. There is no more such a thing as feminism than there is atheism. Just a lot of women who can't get it, or enough, and a bunch of guys who... actually... also can't get any, or enough. Like babies, you just check certain things when they cry, because it doesn't otherwise make sense. I'll leave atheists to... others... of the beautiful mind set. Bleh.

Sometimes, you really have to admire a feminist's driven self bias. It takes a real sense of entitlement to expect to be taken seriously by all and sundry when you're pushing a conspiracy theory like The Patriarchy.